Right back at ya...with the addition of financial ruin...
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-17
In Reply to: Anyone fooled by Palin and McBush - CJ
if Obama and Biden are "hired."
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
who could possibly care? War, financial ruin, health care needs.
nm
Wony ruin my day either way
I could care less what anyone in Hollyweird says or thinks. They live in their own little Idaho far removed from the concerns or cares of the average American.
No thanks. -don't want to ruin my Thanksgiving
nm
people like you love to ruin my day
why say stuff like this? i mean, who is it benefiting, really?
In addition....
They also showed a quote from Military Times that for the first time ever more soldiers oppose this war and Bush's policy than support it.
This certainly runs counter to what I read on the Conservative board but backs up what I have been hearing from the military folks that I know (they are no longer active duty).
In addition to above....
I don't know what plan B you think Clinton had for Somalia...but the fact that he turned tail and ran after they dragged the body of one of our soldiers behind a Jeep instead of acting decisively...if he had fought Al Qaeda in Somalia then...we might not be fighting them in Iraq now. Cutting and running was wrong then and it is wrong now. Wasn't going to bring this up, but it seems appropriate now:
Unintended Consequences: The Rise of Al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda is a transnational umbrella group that has evolved from a loose association of Islamic militants who had flocked to Afghanistan during the 1980s to join the jihad (holy war) against the Soviet occupation. 7 Following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, many of these estimated 25,000 Arab Afghans returned home, where they fostered radical Islamic movements in many Muslim countries, including Somalia. According to U.S. intelligence reports, bin Laden sent Islamic extremists to Somalia in 1991-1992 to help the Somali Islamic radical group al-Ittihad al-Islamiya (Islamic Unity, or AIAI) to organize an armed militia, establish schools and clinics, and prepare to seize power.
One of the most grievous unintended consequences of the U.S. intervention in Somalia was that U.S. peacekeeping forces became a lightning rod for terrorist attacks from bin Laden's terrorists and their Somali allies. Al-Qaeda's first known terrorist attack against Americans was the December 1992 bombing of a hotel in Aden, Yemen, used by American soldiers en route to Somalia to participate in the relief operations. 8
Bin Laden, who lived in nearby Sudan from 1991-1996 under the protection of the radical Islamic regime in Khartoum, regarded the American humanitarian intervention in Somalia as a colonial occupation and a threat to Islam. This mirrored his hostile view of the deployment of U.S. troops to defend Saudi Arabia in 1990 after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. He deemed the U.S. intervention to be an intolerable occupation of his Saudi homeland and a crusade against Islam.
In 1993, bin Laden issued a fatwa (religious edict) calling for Somalis to attack U.S. forces and drive them out of the country. 9 He dispatched several lieutenants, including Mohammed Atef, who is believed to have helped plan the September 11 attacks, to help train Somalis in military and terrorist tactics.
According to U.S. officials, bin Laden spent $3 million to recruit and airlift elite veterans of the Afghan jihad to Somalia via third countries, such as Yemen and Ethiopia. 10 Several hundred foreign veterans of the Afghan jihad, expelled from Pakistan in 1993, also joined the Somali jihad after passing through Sudan. 11 Tariq Nasr Fadhli, a radical Islamic leader from Yemen who fought under bin Laden against the Soviets in Afghanistan, helped bring Yemeni mercenaries to fight in Somalia. 12
Bin Laden later claimed responsibility for the deaths of the 18 U.S. soldiers in Mogadishu. 13 In a 1997 interview with CNN, he gloated that al-Qaeda had trained and organized the Somali fighters who did the actual fighting. 14 Al-Qaeda members are suspected of teaching General Aideed's militia how to shoot down U.S. helicopters by altering the fuses of rocket-propelled grenades so that they exploded in mid-air. 15 This tactic, developed by the Afghan mujahideen (holy warriors) in their war against the Soviets, was the same one al-Qaeda forces used to bring down two U.S. helicopters near Gardez, Afghanistan, during Operation Anaconda in early March 2002.
Triumph Against U.S. in 1993 Stokes Bin Laden's Ambitions.
The ignominious collapse of the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Somalia after October 1993 undoubtedly led bin Laden to conclude that you go kill a few Americans and they go away, as one expert described it. 16 This also reinforced his contempt for American staying power and fueled his ambitions to use terrorism to drive American influence out of the Muslim world: If the deaths of 18 soldiers could cause the withdrawal of 25,000 U.S. troops from Somalia, bin Laden had reason to believe that killing more Americans could lead to a similar pullout from Saudi Arabia.
Al-Qaeda terrorists are suspected of involvement in a series of increasingly ambitious terrorist bombings that killed five U.S. military advisers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in 1995; 19 U.S. military personnel at the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia in 1996; and 224 people, including 12 Americans, in the simultaneous bombings of the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, in 1998. The embassy bombings took place on August 7, the anniversary of the first deployment of U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia in response to the August 2, 1990, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. According to U.S. intelligence, al-Qaeda used Somalia as a regional base of operations, including preparations for the 1998 embassy bombings. 17 Some of the members of the same Kenya-based al-Qaeda cell that helped train Somalis to kill U.S. soldiers in 1993 went on to carry out the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Nairobi. 18
Bin Laden's victory in Somalia also helped radicalize Somali Islamists. Although Somalia's AIAI was formed in the late 1980s as a fundamentalist Islamic social-political movement, it evolved into a revolutionary Islamic force with (1) the return of a sprinkling of Somali veterans of the Afghan jihad, (2) bin Laden's radical influence, and (3) Sudanese support. It sought to build an Islamic state that would be governed by Sharia (Islamic law).
So, if you look at that honestly...Bush is just trying to clean up the mess Bill Clinton left. If he had acted decisively in Somalia (and my husband was in Somalia shortly after Blackhawk Down happened...I know whereof I speak)...perhaps this could have all been avoided. I believe it most assuredly could have. And it proves that if you cut and run Al Qaeda does not go away. They get stronger. The left got us where we are now...and are famous for cutting and running and leaving innocents dangling in the breeze, while all the time professing compassion for the poor and downtrodden. Perhaps you can understand my confusion now. The left gives Clinton a total pass and wants to blame Bush for ... again... trying to clean up the mess Bill left and trying to turn the tide. If Bill had acted differently in Somalia perhaps we could have avoided 9-11 as well. The facts seem to lean in that direction. ANything that Bush has done regarding Iraq pales in comparision to what Clinton did in cutting and running from Somalia in my opinion. I have known all this since Somalia...yet when that same Bill Clinton showed up in OKC after the Murrah building bombing, the first thing that came to my mind was that I was happy that he had come, that the President was there. I did not question why he did not go to the funerals of the 18 soldiers killed in Mogadishu or that he ran like a coward and emboldened the enemy. I understood why he came and took him at face value. I guess that is the difference in you and me.
LOL...In addition to that...(sm)
they need to stick a camera up to every one of them and let the explain to people all over the country why they were so willing to put so many people out of a job.
In addition to the relationships
I referred to in my other post, the fact that I lived in the region and worked with refugees both here and over there, my info comes from all over the place because I make a concerted effort to educate myself on these issues, especially the history of the region, its political parties and the constant interference it has had to withstand from the West for the past 100 years or so. The only thing you suppposedly "know" about who is supporting "these terrorists" is what you are told by a skewed one-sided press that has done nothing but promote and serve the government's agenda when it comes to Israel.
I gave you several logical reasons based on well-known facts that mitigate against the idea that Iran smuggles arms to Hamas. If you knew anything about the occupation and about the relationships of the parties, you would know how logistically impossible that notion is. If you are referring to Hamas instead of Iran (hard to tell by the way you phrased your post), then what you are trying to say is even more absurd and AGAIN is nothing more than a regurgitation of what the media is feeding you.
Hamas are citizens of Gaza themselves and they live in a place that is the 6th most densely populated area in the world. There are 10,792 Gazans per square mile with a total area of only 139 square miles. It is blockaded by land and sea by Israel. There is no exit from the place and there is no way Hamas can NOT live among its own fellow citizens, who by the way, elected them to office in a democratic process, hold them in high regard and recognize them as their representatives. They are hardly embedding or hiding themselves anywhere. They live there, for heaven's sake.
Now whose putting words in whose mouth? I know no such thing and agree with nothing you have said here. You also have no idea how I feel about my country or my fellow Americans. I will not hesitate to say that I think the US policy on Israel is ignorant, barbaric, self-serving and has really very little to do with support of Israel or her people. That makes it hypocritical as well, and I really do not like it one bit when my own government lies to me, which it constantly does about Israel. I also have fairly hostile feelings toward anyone who supports this terrorist apartheid state and turns a blind eye to the human abuses there and to the fact that the only terrorists breeding terrorism there are the Israelis and their benefactors.
As a real American, who is patriotic enough to care about what this country has become, and especially how it's better side has been so eroded by the Bush years, I get to say those things, think those things and still be considered your fellow citizen. Like the Palestinians, I am not going anywhere and your little love it or leave it mantra and your fellow choir members who chant it ad nauseum are nearing extinction, so I'll pass on any further time-consuming comment on that one.
Great idea, with just one addition:
Those who insist on not using the new board for its purpose and instead continue to do what they've been doing should receive some sort of sanction, maybe permanent banning, I don't know.
It seems another problem is that when THEY say something, it's not bashing, whereas ANYTHING we say is bashing as far as they're concerned. I truly believe that a few misguided souls on this board truly don't believe they are doing anything wrong. They are incapable of being objective, feel everything they say is fine, and if someone gets fed up and gives them a taste of their own medicine, they claim they're being attacked.
You could be the Virgin Mary incarnate, and if you dare to express your honest opinion on this board and do not blindly follow and worship Bush, then you're automatically a vile person. Some days ago, Democrat invited one of them to offer a topic for debate, but that has yet to happen. Instead, the poster has, 100% of the time, chosen to bash other posters.
It's a great idea, GT, but the more I think about it, they aren't happy unless they can disrupt others who try to pursue intelligent, worthwhile, tolerant discussion. They tell us to leave the conservative board and stay on our own board, and when we do and there isn't any more fighting on their board, they come here and start because they HAVE to have their fix of liberal bashing for the day. The more I see it, the more it looks like a sick, twisted addiction.
I've made a list, and, unfortunately, it seems to be growing every day. The ones who only want to insult and bash don't get a response from me any more. In fact, I've stopped reading their posts because I already know it's more bashing, so it's a huge waste of time.
As far as ownership of the board, there just might be a new owner, because they no longer seem to favor one group of posters over another group as much, as seemed to be the case before.
But, hey, I'd love to be able to discuss issues in a friendly, respectful manner, and I'm in favor of anything that could promote that! 
Yes, with an addition that I hope anyone reading this...
will look at the entire thread, and a little foray into the archives would not go amiss either. I think the totality of the posts should speak volumes.
Have a good day, Teddy.
IN ADDITION, just log off, you are such miserable LOSERS
WE WON AND WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM US ??????
First proposed addition to Obama's admin....
Rahm Emanuel. Headed the effort to re-elect Richard Daley mayor of Chicago...firmly entrenched in the Chicago political machine. "From work earlier in his career, Emanuel considers Mayor Richard M. Daley, Senator Paul Simon and President Bill Clinton to be his professional mentors." Could this be the shape of things to come? Doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy so far.
I know everyone's focus is on the financial...sm
news of the last several days just heard about a special on CNN tomorrow night and Sunday where Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker and Warren Christopher engage in a forum and talk about foreign policy. I heard a few sound bites and it sounds very interesting. I am glad to see a forum where respected people from both parties with experience get together and express their views, agree or disagree respectfully. I will definitely be watching.
A financial attack?
Tell that to the thousands who lost their lives or their loved ones that day. Wow, how cold can you be?
Financial bonuses
Two days ago on C-Span they seemed to congratulate the bigwigs of the financial companies who got BILLIONS in BONUSES. They ran down the list of those that were being questioned and how much they received. It's absolutely sickening. I had to turn it off.
I think most know that Air America has had financial woes.
Once it was learned that they had misappropriated monies which were supposed to have been used for charity, they lost some good backers. I would think it most probably is financial. There is not a plot behind every business dealing.
mcCain blames financial
crisis on Obama. Get that man a posey and some Aricept.
We have had our financial plan in order
for quite some time for just such a thing. We haven't spent foolishly or lived above our means. New toys and technology don't impress us much. We have been fortunate and blessed.
Well....buck up little soldier. I think the financial...
well being of the country trumps your party. Oh wait...what am I thinking.
I do agree with you about financial irresponsibility
they need to find some sort of middle ground ......
looked at her financial records lately?
she is definitely not a poor girl in my opinion. I think she could afford to buy her own clothes...
Financial crisis meeting;
November 14, 2008
World leaders dine in style as they discuss financial crisis
(CNN) – The global economy may be undergoing a significant downturn, but the White House's dinner budget still appears flush with cash.
After all, world leaders who are in town to discuss the economic crisis are set to dine in style Friday night while sipping wine listed at nearly $500 a bottle.
According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as "Fruitwood-smoked Quail," "Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb," and "Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus."
To wash it all down, world leaders will be served Shafer Cabernet “Hillside Select” 2003, a wine that sells at $499 on Wine.com.
The exceedingly pricey wine may seem a bit peculiar given leaders are in Washington to discuss a possible world financial meltdown, but Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for Laura Bush, said it "was the most appropriate wine that we had in the White House wine cellar for such a gathering.
McDonough also said the White House purchased the wine at a "significantly lower price" than what it is listed at.
"Of course the White House gets its wine at wholesale prices," she said. "Given the intimate size of the group, it was an appropriate time for The White House to use this stock."
The leaders of the U.K., France, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey and 11 developing economies have all come to Washington at the behest of President Bush in an effort to express confidence in the fundamental underpinnings of the world's economy.
– CNN's Becky Brittain contributed to this report
With the looming financial situation...... sm
I don't think Obama's current "plan" will hold much water. A plan is just that....a plan, and we know what John Steinbeck had to say about that. Even if he could tax the upper crust enough to cover the financial crisis, his redistribution of wealth would be moot point because there would likely be nothing left to distribute.
Whether Obama or McCain were elected would make no appreciabe difference in our tax situation because this huge bailout has to be recouped in some fashion and it will be off the backs of ALL Americans.....at least the ones who pay taxes.
No, unions DO put them in a financial hole.
nm
Financial crisis a democratic scandal....sm
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/financial-crisis-a-democrat-scandal/
Read all the comments underneath this, if you have time.
financial disaster, war, health care
You decide what is most important to think about.
How The Democrats Created The Financial Crisis....sm
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Actually, McCain was in financial meetings all morning....sm
and what I read on CNN is that McCain wasn't told of the content of Obama's first call. I can't find the link to it now, because their news keeps changing.
I believe McCain decided this on his own, without any input from Obama, or even knowing about the call.
I'm willing to bet that he won't give a darn if he loses the debate if he doesn't show up, as it sounds as if Obama refuses to cancel the debate to another time.
Just proves to me that McCain does, indeed, put the country first. He's acting like a true leader.
Okay....let's see...McCain picked the financial meltdown...
as the #1 issue. OBama picked his run for the Presidency. Meaning he is always going to put Barack first. McCain put his country first. End of story.
I am not in favor of the financial institution bailout either..... sm
I think it was just the first in a long line of folks parading to the White House with their hands out. I think we have opened a huge can of worms by bailing them out and there does not seem to be an end in sight.
I'd sure like to know when MTs are going to get their bailout! I'd probably get in line for that one! LOL
25 people to blame for the financial crisis
You can vote on each of these.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/
I'm sorry, you are aware of what caused the financial crisis aren't you?
or you will just blame BUSH BUSH BUSH/CHENEY.
Please, do some research.
If my memory serves me, it started going downhill when a democratic congress took over.
Not only that, this MORTGAGE crisis was set into effect by the CLINTON administration and helped by a DEMOCRATIC congress.
Now let me be clear, I do not think Bush was a great president and he made mistakes, but DO NOT tell me that this financial crisis was his doing. I know you are going to flame me, but don't ignore the facts! Actually, that's what liberals do so nevermind, go ahead anyway.
I agree. I am helping the victims with all the financial support I can spare BUT
if we don't ask the question what happened to the levees, what can we do to make sure this doesn't happen again, where did the funding go? then we will find ourselves in the same position again. We can not afford to be policing other countries when the funding is bankrupt for our own needs. That's just the truth.
Best friend to Hillary, a democratic supporter and financial contributer,
a member of the DNC's (Democrat) platform committee has decided to endorse John McCain. Lynn DE Rothchild is best friends of Hillary and gave her 100,000 for Hillary compaign. She had not even spoke to Hillary yet about her news, but Lynn announced on CNN today that she was resigning the DNC and voting for McCain. Lynn stated that our country is divided due to the Democrats and Congress. She also stated that we need to vote only for the president who will get us through what is going on with our country (which is a lot of things currently) and she stated the only one would be McCain and Palin. She stated, "I care more about my country right now than I do my democratic party." Wolf Blitzer stated to Lynn "You know you are are going to get a lot of flack from this?" Lynn stated that she knew this and just cares more about our country. Even Joe Lieberman endorses McCain who used to be AL Gore's running mate. I am sorry, but I agree that our country is divided.
war, depression, recession, collapse of financial system, people losing
homes, natural disasters unattended to, collapsing bridges, earmark bridges. Address those first, save flag for later.
get on back, neocon, get on back
Tell ya what, sweetheart, last I checked this is the LIBERAL BOARD and I havent been banned, as I dont break the rules, so I can stay as long as I want..Seems to me, conservative, you are the one who should mosey on by and get back to drink more Kook-Aid.
Go back then
So, *Really* or whomever you are..I have a thought, why dont you go back to the conservative board and have some fun discussing how you are gonna save America and the world from terrorists or whatever you think we are accomplishing with this war. Bye..bye..**BIG HUG**
Did think you could come back on that
except to call names. If you can't defend yourself just call names...that's how it works, right?
It's funny and predictable how you all react when you're called on the carpet about your hypocrisy.
*Did think you could come back on that*??
You don't consider *unhinged liberal* calling names?!
All you do is come here and pick, pick, pick, fight, fight, fight. You're boring, and you're terribly unfriendly and unpleasant to be around. For that reason, I don't think I'm going to continue to provide an audience for any more of your attention-seeking temper tantrums.
Other than that, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by *Did think you could come back on that.* Is English your second language or is your anger and hatred causing you to become a bit *unhinged* yourself? (Was just a rhetorical question. No need to respond. I won't be reading it.)
We should just go back to
ignoring them, Democrat.
Their own board is dead because they can't stand to AGREE with each other and just be NICE people. They have too much venom that they need to purge or explode, and they've been doing it here.
Not one of them (assuming there is more than one) has posted anything that deserves a response. Not one.
They're just pitiful, bitter, angry, hateful people, and the more we feed them, the fatter they get.
OMG, they are back
The neocons are back..the administrator tells them not to post here but THEY ARE BACK!! A fungus is among us!
Welcome back...nm
Welcome back! You are definitely not alone ...sm
I think anyone who is still able to think for themselves can see it, it is almost predictable actually. Because of all that is going on lately, the translation for that propaganda is:
You need to vote for Republicans so you will not get killed by terrorists.
Back at ya....
Not flip-flops by one person...but several:
1.
WASHINGTON - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi continues to prove that she is willing to say or do just about anything in attempts to gain traction for Democrats. Now, Pelosi is even warming up her rhetoric for summer using the tried-and-failed, Democrat style of flip-flopping.
According to Roll Call, writing in February to members of the Democrat caucus, Pelosi andthe four elected leaders of theDemocratic Caucus ... urged Members to continue a drumbeat of criticism of theprogram, which went into effect on Jan. 1. 'We ask you to use the upcoming February District Work Period and the following weeks to hold town meetings, visits to senior centers, and other public events to drive this message home,' the leaders wrote. (Roll Call, 2/13/06)
Yesterday in a massive course alteration and in the face of positive polling, Pelosi said that Democrats have been out across the country encouraging seniors to sign up for a prescription drug plan by May 15th. (Pelosi Statement, 5/9/06)
If Nancy Pelosi thinks the Medicare prescription drug program should be criticized in February, why is she saying in May that Democrats are encouraging seniors to sign up for the program, National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Carl Forti asked.
Nancy Pelosi is flailing in her attempts to call the prescription drug benefit a program that is 'borne of corruption,' because she knows millions of Americans are in fact saving money, so instead she s taken to her tired routine of playing politics with America s seniors, Forti added, in reference to Pelosi s Sunday appearance on NBC s Meet the Press.
2.
Pelosi and Reid Flip Flop on Implementation of all 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Despite the fact they voted against many of the most important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission over the last few years, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made the implementation of all their recommendations one of their more prominent campaign promises this year...
Well, now that they've won, promises don't mean a thing, and Speaker-elect Pelosi, in response to a reporter's question, now says you can't do them all.
REPORTER: But your promise though was to enact all of the 9/11 recommendations.
PELOSI: What I am saying to you is that they presented several different options and with the goals they have in mind, we have come up with this proposal which removes the barriers between the house appropriators and authorizers, makes the oversight stronger and makes the American people safer, so if they are giving you different alternatives, implicit in that is that you can't do them all. They're already breaking promises... Should we have expected anything else from them?
3.
Hillary Flip Flops on Ethanol
Following in the footsteps of Democrat presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton has “Flip Flopped” on an issue that will play a significant part in the 2008 elections. She is now for ethanol fuel, but she voted against it in June of last year. She failed to learn from Senator Kerry that Flip Flops no longer go unnoticed by voters.
She spoke at the National Press Club and announced her energy plan for the nation. In addition to several user tips like checking tire pressure etc., she espoused the development of ethanol for motor fuel. She suggested that we put a billion dollars from the strategic energy fund into research aimed at unlocking the full potential of ethanol. She also wants to expand loan guarantees to help the first one billion gallons of ethanol capacity come online. She proposes that we have ethanol pumps at 50% of gas stations nationwide by 2015 and a hundred percent by 2025.
This is all well and good, but how could she make 180 degree turn from last June when she voted against ensuring that ethanol is treated like all other motor vehicle fuels and that taxpayers and local governments do not have to pay for environmental damage caused by ethanol? The answer is simple, she has flip flopped in order to better her position in Iowa , whose caucus is a crucial start in the primary process in Presidential elections. In the age of instant information, candidates who change their position with the political winds should take note that their voting record is available to anyone with internet access. Read the how the votes fell at U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session.
4.
Hillary Flip-Flops on Immigration
Democrats flip-flop on a regular basis, and in the age of instant information it is becoming increasingly difficult to pull it off. Kerry tripped over his own statements on his way to defeat in 2004, and Hillary Clinton is well on her way to following in his footsteps.
In an attempt to appear hawkish on immigration in 2003 she said that she was adamantly against illegal immigration:
I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants, Clinton said in a Feb. 2003 radio interview.
Clinton said the U.S. might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens in order to combat illegal border crossings, or implement at least a visa ID, some kind of an entry and exit ID. Story
She has now come out is in favor of citizenship for illegal aliens and claimed that Republicans want to impose a “police state”. In typical Democrat fashion, she is adjusting her position according to the direction in which she believes the winds of politics are blowing:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Wednesday some Republicans are trying to create a police state to round up illegal immigrants. Newsmax
This is similar to the strong position she has taken on the Dubai ports deal. She is adamantly against and Arab company running a handful of terminals at our ports, but is also adamantly against racial profiling. Playing both sides of the fence is classic Clintonian politics and a tactic she probably learned from her charismatic husband.
5. Reid Ticket Flip-Flop
The Associated Press reports that Senator Harry Reid has reversed course, and his office acknowledged Wednesday night he misstated the ethics rules governing his acceptance of free boxing tickets and has decided to avoid taking such gifts in the future.
The Nevada senator still believes it was entirely permissible for him to accept ringside seats for three professional boxing matches in 2004 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission but has nonetheless decided to avoid doing so in the future, his office said.
In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future in order to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety, spokesman Jim Manley said.
The announcement came after The Associated Press confronted Reid's office early Wednesday with conclusions from several ethics experts that the Senate leader misstated congressional ethics rules in trying to defend his actions.
According to Reid, it was perfectly okay for him to accept the free gifts because they were from his home state.
6. Pelosi - Murtha
Pelosi, in a letter distributed Sunday to newly elected House Democrats, wrote that Murtha's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq helped change the electoral campaign for the House this fall. Murtha began calling for a U.S. pullout from Iraq a year ago, and his open opposition to the war made him a focus of intense criticism from Republicans and the White House.
(SNIP)
Pelosi added: Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to continue to lead on these vital issues. For this and for all you have done for Democrats in the past and especially this last year, I am pleased to support your candidacy for Majority Leader for the 110th Congress.
Here is a few interesting points about Murtha on National Security.
Murtha on Homeland Security:
Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 44% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)
So far, doesn't seem Murtha has shown a strong voice on Security for America. Then again, Pelosi doesn't have to tell the truth, does she? After all, she doesn't even think Iraq is a war... she thinks it is a situation!!!!!
Since it has been reported that al-Qaeda has been trying to enter our country via the Mexican border, lets also take a look at Murtha's record on immigration, shall we?
Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
To be VERY clear here, al-Qaeda has already informed us that they have smuggled materials across the Mexican border, this was reported on Nov. 2006.
A NEWSCHANNEL 5 investigation reveals what the feds don't want you to know. Suspected terrorists are hiding inside the U.S. and they got here by sneaking across the Mexican border.
What we've been reporting for more than a year has been confirmed by a government report just released. (Click here to download the report.)
And a brand new interview by Pakistani investigative reporter Hamid Mir is bringing in more information. Mir has interviewed some of America's most dangerous terrorist enemies.
This time the Al Qaeda commander he talked to gave a grim warning that another attack on America is coming very soon.
We can attack America anytime, says Abu Dawood during the interview. He also told the reporter that Muslims must leave America.
Murtha also flip flops about as much as John Kerry does.
Murtha voted for the 10 October 2002 resolution that as a last resort authorized the use of force against Iraq. However, he later began expressing doubts about the war. On 17 March 2004, when Republicans offered a “War in Iraq Anniversary Resolution” that “affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq, when JD Hayworth called for a recorded vote, Murtha then voted against it.
Still, in early 2005 Murtha argued against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. “A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance”, he stated
On 17 November 2005, he touched off a firestorm when he called for the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying, The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.
I guess liberal political opinion flip flops according to what political season it is.
During debate on adopting the rule for the resolution, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, a Republican from Ohio, made a statement attributed to Danny Bubp, an Ohio state Representative and Marine Corps reservist, “He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.
7.
|
 |
( 8/10/2004 ) CNN quoted the San Francisco Democrat today in saying she didn't support the nomination: But I will say what I said before is that there shouldn't - a person should not be the director of central intelligence who's acted in a very political way when we're dealing with the safety of the American people. Intelligence has to be the gathering and analysis and dissemination of information, of intelligence, without any political, any politics involved at all. Sorry, Nancy. The Republican National Committee has unearthed this from June 5, in the Chattanooga Times Free Press: If Goss is nominated for the post, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that she would support him. Pelosi worked closely with Goss during the congressional investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Whoever replaces Tenet needs to be independent of political pressure, Pelosi said. Goss, who worked for the CIA before becoming a congressman in 1988, has shown that ability as chairman of the House Intelligence panel, she added.
8.
Kennedy Flip-Flops on Quizzing High Court Nominees
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 28, 2005
(CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts will be expected to answer fully any questions about his views on controversial issues that could come before the court in the future, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). But, during the 1967 confirmation debate over future Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kennedy argued that Supreme Court nominees should defer any comments on such matters.
In his June 20, floor speech responding to President Bush's nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court, Kennedy argued that senators must not fail in our duty to the American people to responsibly examine Judge Roberts' legal views.
Kennedy listed a number of issues, including workers' rights, health care and environmental regulations, that he considers important.
Each of these issues, and many others, [have] been addressed by the Supreme Court in recent years, Kennedy said. In many of these cases, the Court was narrowly divided, and these issues are likely to be the subject of future Court decisions in the years to come.
The Massachusetts Democrat said he is troubled by Roberts' strict interpretation of the Constitution's commerce clause and added that other aspects of Judge Roberts' record also raise important questions about his commitment to individual rights.
Because Judge Roberts has written relatively few opinions in his brief tenure as a judge, his views on a wide variety of vital issues are still unknown, Kennedy charged. What little we know about his views and values lends even greater importance and urgency to his responsibility to provide the Senate and the American people with clear answers.
Kennedy listed examples of conservative positions Roberts had argued on behalf of both private clients and as the principle deputy solicitor general for the administration of President George H. W. Bush.
Judge Roberts represented clients in each of these cases, but we have a duty to ask where he stands on these issues, Kennedy continued. I join my colleagues in the hope that the process will proceed with dignity. But the nominee will be expected to answer fully, so that the American people will know whether Judge Roberts will uphold their rights. See Video
During the 1967 confirmation debate over the nomination of then-Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, however, Kennedy held a different view about the types of questions the nominee should be required to answer. Film footage obtained by Cybercast News Service shows Kennedy's response to the prospect of senators asking Marshall questions about how he might rule in future cases.
We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court, Kennedy said during a 1967 press conference. This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent. See Video
Marshall was serving President Lyndon Johnson as solicitor general when he was nominated in the summer of 1967. Prior to that, he had been an attorney for the NAACP, and had successfully argued the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that racially integrated the nation's public schools. Marshall's nomination was opposed by Southern Democrats who feared his confirmation would further the cause of racial equality in the United States, but he was confirmed by a vote of 69 to 11 on Aug. 30, 1967.
Multiple calls to Sen. Kennedy's office seeking comment for this report were not returned.
9. noted back on the 10th about how Democrats were playing political games with the Iraq war by being before the suggested ’surge’ in troops in Iraq before they were against it. Well guess what? Add another Democrat to the game players: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes. Via the Washington Times:
On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an “exclusive.” And for good reason.
“In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq,” the story began, Mr. Reyes “said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a ’stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.’ ”
“We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq,” the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, “I would say 20,000 to 30,000.”
Then came President Bush’s expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes’ recommendation and argument word-for-word — albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.
Wouldn’t you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level,” he said.
The chairman’s “double-talk” did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant “hypocrisy” undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.
Indeed.
And just in case anyone doubts the validity of the WashTimes story about this, here’s that Dec. 5 Newsweek story on Reyes:
Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”
The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.
But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.
“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.
[…]
When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: “I would say 20,000 to 30,000—for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.”
[…]
Reyes added that he was “very clear” about his position to Pelosi when she chose him over two rivals—Rep. Jane Harman of California and Rep. Alcee Hastings—to head the critical intelligence post. One widely cited reason that Harman, a moderate Democrat who supported the war, didn’t get the nod from Pelosi is that the Speaker-designate wanted somebody who would be more aggressive in standing up to the Bush White House—which Reyes promises to be on other issues like domestic wiretapping and CIA secret prisons.
But when asked what he told Pelosi about his thinking on Iraq, Reyes replied: “What I said was, we can’t afford to leave there. And anybody who says, we are going pull out our troops immediately, is being dishonest … We’re all interested in getting out of Iraq. That’s a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they don’t care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. Let’s just leave there. And I argue against that. I don’t think that’s responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.”
Here’s Reyes’ flip flop, as reported in the El Paso Times on 1/11/07:
President Bush’s announcement Wednesday evening that he would send about 21,500 more soldiers and Marines to Iraq drew a mixed reaction from El Paso residents, and local officials said they weren’t aware he planned to use Fort Bliss Patriot missile units to defend U.S. allies in the region.
Bush had been expected to announce that he would send a “surge” of troops to Baghdad and to Al Anbar Province in an effort to stop sectarian violence and control the al-Quaida insurgency so the country’s fledgling government can establish itself.
“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level,” said U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, referring to the availability of troops. “The president has not changed direction, but is simply changing tactics.”
Reyes, who met with Bush on Tuesday to review the plan, said sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens. He added that Bush was continuing his “go-it-alone” approach, rather than trying to find diplomatic solutions.
I wrote this in my intial post on Dem flip flops on the surge, and I believe it’s worth repeating today:
They simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth, nor can they be trusted to be in the driver’s seat in a time of war. That these shameless, dishonest, disingenuous, anti-war, cut and run, stuck-in-Vietnam clowns are going to be micromanaging the President’s every move over the next two years on the war on terror is a travesty of epic proportions, and is already proving to be disastrous.
10. Dems Flip Flop on Iraq War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ
A little light listening and watching.
11.
The 16 August 2005 Washington Times has an editorial that digs deeper into two prominent Democrats with aspirations for 2008: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New Arkansas). In Border-control Democrats and President Bush the editors summarize many of the sneaky backtracks and politicking that these two have employed on this crucial national security and economic issue. The opening paragraph alone summarizes the piece perfectly:
Democratic hopefuls for 2008 are sensing how vulnerable President Bush is on border control. The latest sign: New Mexico's politically shrewd governor, Bill Richardson, has made a partial about-face on the issue — at least in words — and is throwing money and attention at his state's southern border. If he makes a national comeback from the Energy Department security scandals that all but ruined his reputation in the final years of the Clinton administration, it will owe in part to a seeming shift on border control that mirrors the one that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made in December and then reneged upon.
The editors then go on to dispel any doubts of the disingenuousness of their rightward tack on immigration and border control by chronicling their flip-flops. Granted: President Bush has been impotent on border security and weak on immigration — one can only assume because he is playing to his Hispanic voter base. So, I grant Bush no amnesty there. But at least he's consistently frustrating on the issue. Richardson and Clinton, however, have been all over the place, but of course pretend that they haven't. (I guess they just assume the American electorate are too stupid to follow their shenanigans… after all, they have election 2004 as precident that at least 48% of the nation could believe anyone, even an alleged war hero.)
Here are some examples of duplicity from The Washington Times regarding Richardson:
In 1996, as a New Mexico congressman, he voted against increases in border-control expenditures and against a work-verification program to discourage the hiring of illegals. His last few years as New Mexico governor have been more of the same. …As the state Minuteman leader, Clifford Alford, put it to local reporters last week, Mr. Richardson has never done anything to secure the border and he's not doing anything now.
This year Mr. Richardson began changing his tune. In March, he appeared on Fox News Sunday with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and called for tough law enforcement, more border guards, a crackdown on illegal smuggling, better detection of those that overstay their visas, stolen/lost passports.
Last week, after a tour of border areas, Mr. Richardson declared a state of emergency in four counties abutting Mexico, citing growing border-area violence, property damage, drug smuggling and problems with illegals crossing the border. He then invited Chris Simcox, a Minuteman leader, to discuss border control — something Mr. Bush has not done and probably cannot do, having labeled them vigilantes in March — and called on Mexico to bulldoze Las Chepas, a staging ground for illegals and smugglers.
As regards Hillary, the editors refer to her comment last December that [I do] not think that we have protected our borders or our ports… we can do more and we can do better — I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants… People have to stop employing illegal immigrants, and then observe:
Since then, Mrs. Clinton has turned back toward left-liberal orthodoxy. Last month, she gave a fawning speech to the National Council of La Raza in which she endorsed the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minorities (DREAM) Act, which would guarantee illegals in-state college-tuition rates and also grant amnesty to tens of thousands of illegals who graduate from U.S. high schools. The border-control hawkishness had vanished.
|
12. Massive Al-Qaeda Iraq flip flop
Today's lesson on How to Beat the Liberals with Facts about Iraq and Al Qaeda focuses on the hypocrisy of the Democrats. The Bush Administration was not the only politicos to link Al Qaeda and Iraq. But to listen to these very same Dems today, you would think otherwise. **Keep in mind that there is quite a difference in claiming ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda versus Iraq in cahoots with Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. The ties between the two terrorist organizations is the issue in question.**
How many times have we heard the KOS kissing former presidential candidate, Gen. Wesley Clark, claim no connection to Iraq and Al Qaeda? But what did Wesley say in 2002???
Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda
NY Times ^ Jan. 12, 2004 EDWARD WYATT
MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 11 — Less than a year before he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that he believed there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.
The statement by General Clark in October 2002 as he endorsed a New Hampshire candidate for Congress is a sign of how the general's position on Iraq seems to have changed over time, though he insists his position has been consistent.
Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, he said in 2002. It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?
SNIP
In an interview, General Clark said his more recent remarks were not inconsistent with what he said in 2002. In those remarks, he said, he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.
********************
President Bush was not the first President to claim ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The slick one from Arkansas was numero uno...
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements...
In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan...
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists...
To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.
*************************
Clinton White House Saw Saddam-Osama Connection
NewsMax ^ 7/12/04 Jon E. Dougherty
...The U.S. attorney involved in preparing that indictment, Patrick Fitzgerald, told the federal 9/11 commission the intelligence surrounding the indictment came from one Jamal al Fadl, a former high-ranking al-Qaeda leader who, before the Sept. 11 attacks, gave the U.S. its first real look at the terrorist organization.
Fadl said an associate of bin Laden's, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (Abu Hajer al Iraqi) tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other -- sort of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' -- and that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there, which al-Qaeda left in the summer of '96, or the spring of '96, there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons.
Within several months, al-Qaeda bombed a pair of U.S. embassies in East Africa. In retaliation, Bill Clinton used an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection, Hayes said, when he ordered the cruise missile attack on the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
On Aug. 24, 1998, a senior intelligence official was made available by the administration and cited strong ties between the plant and Iraq as the basis for the attack.
SNIP
A day later Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs and one of only a few officials involved in planning the al Shifa strike, confirmed an Iraq-Sudan (and, by proxy, al-Qaeda) connection: We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program.
U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson (now the governor of New Mexico) made an appearance on CNN, where he talked of direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation.
You combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear-cut case.
Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, penned an op-ed for the Washington Times on Oct. 16, 1998. In it he asserted the administration had physical evidence indicating that al Shifa was the site of chemical weapons activity.
Other products were made at al Shifa, he continued. But we have seen such dual-use plants before -- in Iraq. And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted chemical weapons activity in Sudan.
Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism czar for both Clinton and Bush who, in a recent book, laid most of the blame for 9/11 at the feet of the current administration, told the Washington Post in a Jan. 23, 1999 interview the U.S. was sure Iraq was behind the VX precursor being manufactured at the al Shifa plant.
The Post reported: Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.
*****************************
Dems connected Iraq, al-Qaida
By Charles D. Ganske 7/5/04
Yet, Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, in his recent testimony before the 9/11 Commission, insisted that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program. For the Iraqis not to have known bin Laden was a major investor in the El Shifa plant seems to be quite a stretch.
*******************************
The final nail in the coffin was signed by many of the Lefties that now claim voting for the war in Iraq was a mistake... You know, people like John Kerry, John Murtha...
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]] Public Law 107-243107th Congress
Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
<>
...Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;...
My my my... how things change when a Republican is President. It was completely believable and promoted by Democrats when Clinton was in office. Yet the only action Clinton took was bombing the pharmaceutical factory at Al Shifa. President Bush's actions have deposed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. His only mistake - he is a Republican.
13.
BEN NELSON:
Immigration Hardliner? Or Lobbyist for Meatpackers?
NEGOP Questions Democrat Ben Nelson’s Immigration Flip-Flop
***
Lincoln, Neb. – The Nebraska GOP called on Democrat Senator Ben Nelson today to come clean on his apparent flip-flop on federal immigration policy. Nelson announced plans to introduce legislation addressing illegal immigration.
In 1999, former Governor and soon to be candidate for United States Senate Ben Nelson acted as a lobbyist for the meatpacking industry in a dispute with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). INS was subpoenaing employee records at meatpacking plants across the state, investigating document discrepancies.
- “Former Gov. Ben Nelson says the crackdown on undocumented workers in Nebraska meatpacking plants is detrimental to Nebraska.” (Nelson critical of Operation Vanguard, Calls it Detrimental; Grand Island Independent; Thursday, June 3, 1999)
- Nelson said he thinks the INS should start a separate program that would allow temporary visas for undocumented workers. (Associated Press, “Nelson says INS operation draining state’s labor pool”; 6/4/99)
- [Nelson] said he has been approached by several meatpacking companies, asking for his help in developing a pilot program that would make temporary visas available to undocumented employees. “We need to find more ways to employ people rather than limit them,” Nelson said. (The Grand Island Independent, 6/3/99).
“The issue in this instance is consistency and leadership. In 1999, the year before his Senate race, Ben Nelson lobbied for meatpackers – advocating for programs to permit the importation of foreign workers into permanent US jobs. In 2005, the year before his Senate race, Ben Nelson feigns concern about border security,” said Executive Director Jessica Moenning. “Ben Nelson changes what he thinks from one term to the next based on who he’s lobbying for or what a poll says - that is NOT leadership.”
“Nebraska needs a leader who will say what he means and mean what he says, not someone who changes his position if a focus group says so. Ben Nelson owes the voters of Nebraska an explanation for his flip-flop.”
I don't know. Where were you back then??
I was aware because a friend of mine is from Iraq and his mother was a Kurd and was killed. He and his brother had been schooled here and they were working here. His father is still there. I have lost contact with him, the friend. He moved to CA and we just lost touch. I would imagine that his father is probably dead. We worked together in the 80s. I know Mavis Leno (Jay's wife) has been working for Afghanistan women for years. She probably knew and cared a lot and I am sure that the people who did know cared quite a lot a well. I really can't tell you where everyone else was. I would guess most Americans were in the same state of mind about Iraq that they are today in respect to every other poverty-ridden, despot-ravaging, corrupt country, state or region, Asia, Africa, South America...We(some of us) care about Iraq because it has been brought to our attention for the first time, Iraq that is. You will find no dearth of man's inhumanity to man in any corner of this planet you look. Whoever you are, you may or may not know that I am a complete and total pacifist. I can think of no good reason for war...really...but since we've got it, my priority is to end the carnage for both sides ASAP.
Right back at ya..lol nm
nm
your back
I agree. It would be very traumatizing to the child to be hauled around and raised by a succession of nannies. The child's needs come before her political ambition.
right back at ya...
DIdn't see anything there about God Dam* America for starters. More to follow.
No, sam's right. I can't back it up but I
remember that being on the news almost every night for weeks when Clinton revealed his budget.
WELCOME BACK SAM!!!!! nm
nm.
Yes I did, quite a while back. nm
.
|
